Although Montagu achieved distinction both as a minister and as the godfather of the Bank of England in the decade following the Revolution, after his elevation to the Lords in 1700 further significant responsibilities eluded him until the Hanoverian succession at the close of his life. His career under Queen Anne was marked by thwarted ambition, which gave rise to fractious relations with his Junto colleagues, who never seem to have been wholly persuaded of his fidelity to the cause. For Arthur Maynwaring‡, quoting what he believed to be a well-informed source, Montagu was ‘like the fly upon the wheel, that would always thrust himself upon people and fancy he did great matters, when in truth he only made himself ridiculous.’
His colleagues were right to doubt Montagu’s zeal. Unusually for one of the central figures in the Junto and, in spite of his close friendship with the group’s acknowledged head, John Somers, Baron Somers, Montagu seems not to have been a staunch adherent of party.
Opinion was similarly divided on Montagu’s merits as a literary patron. Jonathan Swift, who at one point was close to him, later derided his &lquo;patronage’ of artists and writers as amounting to little more than &lquo;good words and good dinners’.
Early career to 1700
As the younger son of a younger son of Henry Montagu†, earl of Manchester, and possessed of little more than a small annuity, Montagu needed to make his own way in the world.
Instrumental in the establishment of the Bank of England, Montagu invested £2,000 of his own money in the venture and in May 1694 he was appointed chancellor of the exchequer. He over-reached himself the following year in his efforts to oust Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, and the attempt was followed by a rather hollow reconciliation.
By the middle of the decade, Montagu had become closely associated with several of the men who were to form the backbone of the Whig Junto. A close personal friend of Somers, Montagu was acknowledged one of the Whigs’ principal managers in the Commons, a role made the more vital by the removal of Thomas Wharton, 5th Baron (later marquess of) Wharton, to the Lords in 1696. By the following year, he was the only member of the Junto leadership still in the Commons. A report that year that he was to be created earl of Glasgow came to nothing.
The Parliaments of 1701
Following the dissolution of Parliament in December 1700, Halifax was working with his Junto partner, Wharton, to secure the return of Whig candidates and campaigning on behalf of his brother, Irby, at Maldon. Cary Gardiner, writing to the Tory Sir John Verney, speculated that Halifax’s kinsman, Wriothesley Russell, 2nd duke of Bedford, would use his interest on behalf of pro-Church candidates, even though Halifax was thought to be ‘too great’ with him.
Halifax was one of three people nominated to oversee the prospective union of the old and new East India companies in September 1701. The following month he was present at a committee of the East India Company.
In the absence of ministerial responsibilities, Halifax devoted his energy to business within the House, concentrating in particular on financial and economic measures. On 13 Mar. 1702 he reported from the committee of the whole concerning the bill for preventing the counterfeiting of coin. It was Halifax, according to his biographer, who introduced the complaint about the publication of libels claiming that King William had planned to secure the succession of the electress of Hanover instead of Princess Anne which led on 4 May to an address to the queen for the prosecution of their authors, and the subsequent interrogation of Dr Drake, author of The History of the Last Parliament, on 9 May.
Out of office: the Parliament of 1702
In the space between the dissolution and the new Parliament, Halifax’s attention was divided between his efforts to settle a dispute with Peregrine Osborne, styled marquess of Carmarthen (the future 2nd duke of Leeds), over the place of auditor of the receipt, to which both laid claim, and his activities on behalf of various friends and kinsmen in the elections. Following hearings in the treasury council between May and July 1702 and, in spite of the warnings voiced by Halifax’s counsel, Sir Thomas Powys‡, that should &lquo;another be admitted there would be a scuffle between two auditors at the same time’, the lord treasurer, Sidney Godolphin, Baron (later earl of) Godolphin, ruled that the dispute would have to be settled at law.
In the new Parliament Halifax was closely involved in the opposition to the Commons’ occasional conformity bill. He was said by his biographer to have been the author of the motion declaring the practice of ‘annexing any clause or clauses to a bill of aid or supply, the matter of which is foreign to, and different from, the matter of the said bill of aid or supply’ to be ‘unparliamentary, and tending to the ‘destruction of the constitution of this government’, agreed by the House on 9 Dec. 1702 in anticipation of another attempt to tack the occasional conformity bill.
That month he faced renewed attacks upon him in the Commons. The report of the commissioners for public accounts, presented on 26 Jan. revealed malpractice in the exchequer, which was pinned in the Commons’ resolutions of that day principally on Halifax as Auditor of Receipt; on the following day a resolution passed to address the queen to prosecute him. The Lords, however, defended Halifax, discussing the report of the commissioners for accounts on 2 Feb., when they established their own committee to examine it, and the accounts, in more detail. The commissioners themselves failed to attend it, but nevertheless, on 5 Feb. the committee reported their findings, concluding that Halifax was innocent of any neglect or breach of trust, and agreed that they should be printed. Their vindication produced a resentful exchange of conferences between the two houses on the subject, which raised an old dispute about the extent to which the Lords should participate in business relating to the accounts. Halifax himself was nominated one of the managers of three conferences on the subject on 17, 22 and 25 February. The commissioner later discovered another issue, the apparent appropriation of £500 a year out of the annuity office. Several months later, Sir Rowland Gwynne‡, who was alleged to have received precisely this sum from Halifax as payment for the detection of smugglers, wrote from his self-imposed exile in Hanover to apologize for Halifax’s trouble in this session, asserting that &lquo;if there was any fault, it was mine, not yours’. Gwynne had also written to Sir Richard Onslow‡ to explain his role in the affair and invited Halifax to lay the letter before the Commons ’or wherever else it might be of service to your lordship if you desire it.’
Having come through the difficulties of the last few months relatively unscathed, Halifax appears to have marked the occasion with a change of motto. The rather defeatist fuimus (we have been) was altered for the more confident and patrician otium cum dignitate (leisure with dignity).
On 10 Dec. 1703 Halifax had reported from the committee of the whole House drawing up heads for a bill to prevent the buying and selling of offices and he reported again from committee of the whole House on the same business on 15 December. Present at a dinner hosted by Charles Powlett, 2nd duke of Bolton, on 17 Dec., three days later he chaired the first meeting of a committee established to enquire into the keeping of public records, which was to become his principal passion over the ensuing decade.
As a result of his activities, Halifax was regarded as a particular target by high Tories in the Commons – ‘singled out’, James Vernon‡ wrote on 24 Dec. 1703.
My Lord Halifax is come off easier than some intended he should: he was well advised to make it known that he insisted on no privilege. However, the information against him was ordered to be brought in, that a further charge might be added to it out of the last year’s report of the commissioners of the accounts, that he had taken 500l. per annum out of the annuity fund, for the gratification of persons employed under him, to recompence their additional trouble, which was represented as contrary to the act granting that fund. But the law being looked into, no such thing appeared; the remainder of the fund was no way disposed of, and therefore the Treasury might, as they did, by the king’s order, give convenient salaries out of it to those who did the business, and it was then observed that this cold be no peculiar crime in the auditor, but was the same in the tellers, who had 300l. per annum among them for keeping four clerks to attend the annuity payments.
Vernon-Shrewsbury Letters, iii. 244.
And so, Vernon wrote, ‘it passed over’, although the original charges remained to be decided at law over the summer.
On 28 Jan. 1704 he reported from the committee for the bill of Ralph Montagu, earl (later duke) of Montagu, as fit to pass and on 13 Feb. he was present at a gathering at Sunderland’s, where the Scotch Plot, then being considered by the House, dominated the discussion. On 23 Feb. Halifax reported from a committee on a bill concerning personal estates in York. On 18 Mar. he dined with Charles Bennet, 2nd Baron Ossulston (later earl of Tankerville), at the Queen’s Arms, and three days later he attended at much larger Whig gathering at Sunderland’s house, both of which probably related to proceedings on the Scotch Plot.
During the summer, a report circulated that Halifax was shortly to marry the countess of Warwick but it turned out to be groundless.
the weakness or disunion of the high party, for the matter of the debate had the advantage of being a pretended privilege of the House of Commons, which is a dear thing and against Lord Halifax, a man who has there very many who hate him heartily and yet the majority was very considerable.
CJ, xiv. 426-8; Add. 61458, ff. 33-34; Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 438-9.
The Commons had, however, agreed to bring in another occasional conformity bill on the day (14 Nov.) on which they called for the record of the trial. An unlikely story from Halifax’s biographer suggests that it was Halifax who was behind the attempt in the Commons to tack the bill to the supply bill, as a way of defeating the Lords’ veto: he had suggested it to Harley, as a means of wrecking the unity of the high Tories. If untrue, it was some indication of a relationship between Halifax and Harley. When the occasional conformity bill came into the Lords, to be as usual rejected on first reading on 15 Dec., Halifax spoke in response to John Sharp, archbishop of York.
At some point early in this session – perhaps shortly after the vote on the occasional conformity bill – Halifax mounted an attack on the recently-elevated high Tory bishop, George Hooper, bishop of Bath and Wells. Having spent the morning with Thomas Tenison, archbishop of Canterbury, who had drawn it to his attention, Halifax presented the House with a sermon that had been preached by Hooper before the Commons some three years previously which he insisted should be censured.
The 1705 Parliament and the quest for office
Parliament was dissolved in April 1705. According to his biographer, Halifax wrote a response to a speech by the high Tory champion of occasional uniformity William Bromley‡ (1663-1732), called An Answer to Mr B’s speech, which was printed, though no copy has been found. The pamphlet, which particularly attacked the practice of tacking, had, he claimed, a ‘great influence’ on the elections.
Noted a supporter of the Hanoverian succession in April, Halifax visited Newmarket, accompanying the queen (who also dined with one of the Junto, Orford, at Chippenham), and took the opportunity to oversee business involving his friend, George Stepney. At Cambridge Halifax received his honorary degree, and his brother a knighthood.
Halifax was involved with Somers and Godolphin in the early stages of the union negotiations that autumn.
Halifax attended a dinner at the beginning of 1706 which it was said was intended to help bring about a reconciliation between him, Somers and Harley.
congratulate the same spirit, that has had so great a share in the happy conclusion of the affair of the regency &c; my lord, your conduct in turning their own cannon upon those persons whose real grief it has been that the dangers of the Church, and the dangers of the Protestant succession are only imaginary and chimerical, is matchless and inimitable; and a good account of that whole transaction will be one of the brightest periods of your lordship’s story.Eg. 929, f. 90.
On 7 Feb. 1706 Halifax had been appointed one of the managers of a conference concerning the regency bill. After the Commons had put off discussing the Lords’ amendments to the bill, Halifax seems to have been instrumental in persuading at least one of the country Whigs, Robert Eyres‡ to give up the ‘Whimsical’ clause.
Having taken an early lead in the negotiations, Halifax was appointed one of the commissioners for union with Scotland in April 1706. The same month he was despatched to Hanover as envoy to the Electress Sophia.
Halifax took his seat in the new session on 3 Dec. 1706, and was present on 77 percent of all sittings. The opening of the session coincided with a series of removals from office of Tories and concessions to the Whigs, including those of the Junto: elevations for Wharton and Cowper, and appointment of Sunderland as secretary of state. Halifax’s brother was made solicitor general, though Halifax himself obtained no appointment. Prominent in the union debate on 14 Jan. 1707, he joined with Wharton and Somers in arguing that the House should delay further consideration of the business until the treaty had been ratified by the Scottish parliament.
Halifax received Montagu’s proxy once more on 4 Feb. 1707 (again vacated by the close). On 6 Feb. he dined with Somerset. He spoke in the debates on the Union bill on 15 and 24 Feb., speaking especially to the proportion of the land tax to be paid by the Scots and on the Equivalent payment. After the second occasion he joined the company at Wharton’s.
At the end of March, Halifax had written to Marlborough expressing his unhappiness that his credentials had been passed over when choosing an envoy for the Netherlands: Charles Townshend, 2nd Viscount Townshend, had gone instead, despite Halifax’s service the previous year in Hanover and at The Hague, and his efforts to encourage Somers to consider the Dutch concerns about peace. He had, he wrote, been treated ‘with great contempt, or unkindness’. (A note by the duchess of Marlborough on the letter suggests that her husband had found him in the previous embassy ‘so troublesome that he could not bear him’.)
Halifax returned to the House for the new session, the first following the Union, on 23 Oct. 1707, after which he was present on 87 per cent of all sittings. The altered condition of the House, with the introduction of Scottish peers, gave rise to a belief that there would be a change of party distinctions. One correspondent thought he discerned the formation of a new court party when he saw Wharton, Halifax and Rochester going ‘hand in hand in the great debate in the House of Lords about the admiralty.’
Halifax reported from the committee considering the state of trade on 7 Jan. 1708 and the following day from that considering the address for papers and accounts relative to trade. Between 21 and 23 Jan. he chaired the committee of the whole for the bill for the increase of seamen and manning of the navy and on 10 Feb. he reported from the committee of the whole considering the succession to the crown bill. On 5 Feb. Halifax had supported the motion to abolish the Scots Privy Council in May rather than delaying until October. He was also elected by ballot on 9 Feb. to the committee of seven charged with investigating the activities of William Gregg, Harley’s under-secretary. On 20 Feb. Joseph Addison referred to Halifax as the ‘chief promoter’ of ‘one of the greatest affairs before the House of Commons at present’ namely a scheme which sought to reform the system for awarding naval prizes, as part of the general reform of the admiralty.
In the late spring of 1708 he was forced to respond to concerns that efforts had been made to drive a wedge between him and his kinsman, Manchester, who was encountering difficulties in his embassy in Venice. Halifax insisted that he would ‘always espouse your interest and promote your good.’
to push the American project, for now is the time to set that adventure afloat, when people’s hearts are up, when they [despise] the French and think a peace so near… my brains do so crow with our great success, that I cannot help drawing schemes for destroying the French in other places besides America.Add. 61118, f. 106.
The Parliament of 1708
Halifax returned to the House at the opening of the new Parliament on 16 Nov. 1708 (after which he was present on over 90 per cent of all sittings). In advance of the session he had been engaged in further negotiations with Harley, which precipitated a falling-out with his some of his Whig colleagues. They were convinced that he was pursuing underhand dealings with both Harley and Shrewsbury to bring about a change of ministry. It was no doubt such concerns that gave rise to the unlikely rumours circulating early the following year that he was to be appointed lord treasurer.
Halifax voted against permitting Scots peers with British titles to vote in the election of Scots representative peers in the division held on 21 Jan. 1709. Despite his faltering relations with the duumvirs, he retained sufficient interest to attempt to assist Patrick Hume, earl of Marchmont [S], that month in his efforts on behalf of Sir Andrew Hume (presumably a kinsman).
Halifax’s relations with the duchess of Marlborough continued to decline. She accused him of implying that she had obstructed his brother’s admission as attorney general, and also of writing to the Electress Sophia asserting that the cause of their falling out was that he was a friend of Hanover and she was not.
Ranger of Bushy 1709-10
It was not just Halifax’s relations with the duchess of Marlborough that were under strain. By November 1709 reports were circulating that Somers and Halifax were no longer ‘as well together as they used to be’. Sunderland added to the jealousies within the ranks of the Junto by criticizing Halifax roundly and making it known that he did not think it ‘at all necessary that Halifax should be in the cabinet’. During the summer, Halifax had been presented with the very minor sop of the rangership of Bushy Park and although it could be argued that by giving him responsibility for Hampton Court and thus access to the queen it was a more significant place than at first sight appears, it was in truth a paltry role that only served to emphasize his isolation from the rest of the Junto leadership, who had by now all secured senior places in the administration. By the close of the year Halifax claimed to have accepted his situation and professed that if his offer to aid the ministry was not taken up, he would retire quietly from the scene. Commenting on such avowals Maynwaring concluded tellingly, ‘if he keeps his word, the ministers will have less trouble upon that head.’
Halifax took his seat in the new session on 15 Nov. 1709 (of which he attended 74 per cent of all sittings) and almost at once demonstrated the uneasiness of his current relations with his associates. The day before the opening he was waited on by Maynwaring at the bidding of Somers and Sunderland, and asked to move the address of thanks to the queen’s speech. Halifax’s initial response was said to have been a hearty oath followed by a flat refusal but by the next day he had succumbed to further pressure. He agreed to move the Address, ‘to which motion he has artfully (as they said) named the duke of Marlborough, so that nobody else can be mentioned but very improperly’: the text of the motion reported by Halifax to the House on the 16th referred to the success of the queen’s arms, under Marlborough’s command. The following month he had a conference with Marlborough and Godolphin. Although Maynwaring was unable to puzzle out the result of the discussions, he seemed to think that it was conducted on friendlier terms than previously.
Halifax seems not to have been closely involved in the House’s committee work during the remainder of the session, though on 13 Feb. 1710 he reported from the committee for the Northampton and Stoke Goldington highways bill. Shortly after, however, he cooperated with his Junto colleagues in the efforts to impeach Dr Henry Sacheverell. The day after the trial opened in Westminster Hall, Halifax hosted the queen at supper.
That summer there were renewed rumours that Halifax was to marry again. Once more, the reports (this time that he was to marry Juliana, dowager countess of Burlington) proved inaccurate.
the queen has been pleased to offer to send me over to assist at the making of the peace … as I shall not be willing to accept this commission till I see a better prospect of maintaining our credit at home, so I would by no means enter upon so nice an affair without the hopes of your favour and directions.Add. 61134, f. 207.
Illness prevented him from taking up the post, however: out of town suffering with gout in July, Halifax was still struggling with poor health by the end of August.
much joy in the station you have accepted, which, as you foresee, will be attended with so great difficulties, that I tremble at them. Your great abilities and your knowledge of the revenue, will soon make you master of all the business, but how you will restore credit, and find money for the demands that will be upon you exceeds my capacity.HMC Portland, iv. 560.
In his correspondence with Newcastle, Harley reckoned Halifax to be ‘very sincere’ in his intentions but he thought that ‘others are underhand doing all the mischief possible.’ He later contrasted Cowper’s unwillingness to ‘come out of his reserve’ with Halifax’s more ‘frank’ approach.
Halifax and Harley’s friendly relations did not save Halifax’s brother from being turned out of his place as attorney general in September.
The Parliaments of 1710-14
In spite of the Whigs‘ doubts about Halifax’s steadfastness (they were said to have dubbed him van der Dussen – the middle-way steering Dutch diplomat), reports from the Tory camp as well as Harley’s concerted wooing, by the end of the summer it was clear that Halifax would not be recruited into the new ministry.
Having failed to bring about an alliance with Harley, Halifax did all in his power to persuade Newcastle to come up in time to take his seat at the opening of the new Parliament. He emphasized the continuing downturn in the public finances, ‘though I must do Mr Harley the justice, he does what he can to support it.’
Halifax hosted a dinner on 6 Feb. 1711, and also attended a gathering of Whigs on the 8th, possibly relating to the recent votes about the war in Spain.
Appointed one of the managers of the conference for amendments to the act for the preservation of pine trees in America on 10 May, on 12 and 17 May 1711 Halifax was also appointed manager of a further two conferences concerning the preservation of game. Halifax received the proxy of William Cowper*, Baron (later Earl) Cowper, the following day (which was vacated by the close of the session). Assuring his colleague that it was in safe hands, he advised Cowper to work on his recovery from illness and to leave it to him to take care of the business then before the Lords: ‘we have raised a spirit in the House against the Scotch naval stores more than I expected and we have made amendments to it’.
Following the close of the session, rumours abounded that the Junto had split and that Halifax and Somers were on the point (once again) of aligning themselves with Oxford (as Harley had since become).
The hints you gave me of a greater affair are very noble, and well secured will gain you immortal honour. But pray allow me to say you can never be secure of anything from that quarter, unless they think the queen’s affairs in such a posture, as to be afraid of her; while she is feared, you may command, and make the best figure ever man did in England, but you can obtain nothing, if they see you under difficulties.HMC Portland, v. 79.
Negotiations between Oxford and Halifax continued into the autumn. The participation of Somers was also clearly still being sought. In November Halifax assured the treasurer that Somers was ‘as much disposed to wait upon your lordship as you can desire’ and on 2 Dec. he wrote to excuse their failure to visit on account of Somers’ current indisposition, but he was at pains to emphasize that ‘when you shall be informed of a certain negotiation now on foot and what treatment it has met with, you will judge better of the sincerity of our professions.’
Despite Halifax’s dalliances with Oxford, his name appeared on a list of December 1711 in Nottingham’s hand of 19 Whig peers, in preparation for the attack on the ministry at the opening of the session. The day before the new session opened (6 Dec.) Halifax wrote to Oxford again in an effort to suggest a way forward in the expected clash in the House over the peace:
You best know your own calculation, but according to mine there will be a majority in our House against the terms of peace offered by France. If that be so, why should [the] lord treasurer struggle and labour that point, he has been willing to hearken to proposals of peace, he has communicated them to the allies, invited them to meet and consider of the terms, gone hand in hand with Holland in the steps that have been made; if their Lordships think the nation in a condition to insist on higher demands, and that their resolutions will obtain them, he wishes it as much as anybody. If you thought it not improper to turn the debate in this manner, you would remove the difficulties from yourself, leave room for reasonable measures, and throw the blame of extravagant ones on others.HMC Portland, v. 125.
Halifax took his seat in the new session the following day (7 Dec. 1711) after which he was present on 59 per cent of all sittings, a significant falling off from his usual level of attendance. He voted, naturally, for the ‘No Peace without Spain’ amendment of the Address, and on the 8th he was listed among those in favour of retaining the amendment in the Address, in the ‘abandoned’ division of that day. Also on 8 Dec. he received the proxy of William Paget, 7th Baron Paget, which was vacated by the close of the session, adding the proxy of George Booth, 2nd earl of Warrington, to his tally on 9 Dec. (which was vacated on 14 Feb. 1712). On 19 Dec. he was forecast as being likely to oppose the motion to allow James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S] to sit in the House by virtue of his British dukedom of Brandon. On 20 Dec. he spoke in the House in answer to a ‘moving speech’ by Archibald Campbell, earl of Islay [S], who had stressed the awful consequences if the queen’s power to appoint to the Lords was curtailed. Halifax responded, ‘if we were to consider of consequences we of south Britain had some consequence to consider as well as they’. He then voted in favour of excluding Scots peers holding post-union British peerages from attending the House by virtue of those creations.
Despite standing in opposition to Oxford in the early manoeuvres of the session, Halifax wrote to the treasurer on 26 Dec. 1711 to assure him once again of his willingness to assist him, insisting that ‘I do sincerely desire to promote the good of my country in your lordship’s hands, rather than struggle for it, any other way, which is less natural, more difficult and must prove less effectual.’ Within a few days, though, Halifax’s mood had changed. He now confessed to Oxford:
I must own I am in a most desponding way, till very lately I thought it was in your lordship’s power to save this nation, but I have now doubts of that. However since you think there is one way left, pray let me know it. I have the same inclination to serve the queen and my country, the same disposition impartially to pursue that end, though less hopes of attaining it.
Halifax agreed to meet with Oxford the following day when he would be ‘very ready to explain anything to you that makes me think it so difficult even for your lordship to save us.’
On 31 Jan. 1712 Halifax acted as one of the tellers for the division held in a committee of the whole concerning the adoption of the preamble to the bill repealing the general naturalization bill (the motion was carried by 18 votes). On 11 Feb. he acted as a teller once again for the vote over whether to postpone the second reading of the Scots episcopal communion bill (which was rejected by eight votes). Two days later, after counsel had been heard on behalf of the Scots Presbyterians who opposed the measure, he spoke in the debate in the committee of the whole, emphasizing the ‘inconveniences and danger of such a bill’.
Halifax received Warrington’s proxy on 7 Apr. 1712; it was vacated by the close of the session. On 12 Apr. he was reported to have been amongst those who spoke ‘a great many bold things but to no purpose’ in opposition to the Scottish episcopal patronage bill, but the court’s backing for the measure ensured that it was committed.
Despite their considerable differences, Halifax’s correspondence with Oxford continued, though he betrayed some impatience with the treasurer on 14 June 1712 pointing out irritably, ‘I wish I knew the meaning of your lordship’s questions, for you should govern in that which is most to the purpose. It is miserable to see a nation undone knowingly, and willingly for want of resolution.’
to confess the truth I am so out of humour for reasons that are too visible that the freedom, the familiarity and openness that makes the conversation of an intimate friend so agreeable at any other time serve to aggravate and heighten one’s uneasiness. It is better methinks to fly to the next trifling amusements for relief against the remembrance of our calamities than by looking nicely and freely into the circumstances of a foolish deluded people.Herts. ALS, DE/P/F55, Halifax to Cowper, 7 Aug. 1712.
By December, however, he was once more to be found tantalizing Oxford with his offers of assistance. On 21 Dec. he suggested ways in which to dispose of the office of chancellor of the exchequer and on 26 Dec. he apologized for the downturn in their relationship, insisting that, ‘whatever accidents or whatever fatality have hitherto hindered our clearly understanding each other, the loss, the misfortune, has been wholly mine.’
Halifax was one of those present at a great meeting of the Whig leadership at Pontacks in January 1713.
Despite such assurances Halifax was noted as a likely opponent of the ministry in a list compiled in March by Jonathan Swift with Oxford’s additions. That month his continuing efforts to negotiate the party divide provoked the ire of another of his colleagues when he hosted a dinner party for members of the former ministry. The presence of Oxford at the event caused Sunderland to turn back at the door and most of the rest of the Junto also chose to leave rather than break their bread in his presence.
The honour of your last visit gave occasion to a great many idle stories, but I hope you do not much regard such impertinence, and I am sure I would not lose one opportunity of showing my respect to you, and contributing anything to your service, and the establishing the queen, and the protestant succession, to avoid anything can be said of me.HMC Portland, v. 275.
In spite of his blandishments, having taken his seat in the House in the new session on 9 Apr. 1713, Halifax contested the claim that a ‘general’ peace had been negotiated, and proposed an amendment to the Address in response to the queen’s speech, asking for the treaties of peace and commerce with France to be laid before the House.
I should be wanting to the confidence and favour your lordship showed me in your last letter, if I did not acquaint you that I have so far discoursed some of my friends as to be able to assure you that your lordship may depend upon their being ready to concur with your lordship, if you think fit to oppose the wild proceeding with which we are threatened.HMC Portland, v. 292-3.
Despite the renewed overtures, the peace as ever proved a sticking point and it proved far too tempting for the Junto leadership to ignore the opportunity to court the disgruntled Scots peers. Both Somers and Halifax went some way towards offering the Scots’ calls for the dissolution of the Union a sympathetic hearing, though they balked at the more radical measures advocated by their colleague, Wharton. Consequently, when Halifax spoke in the House in the debate considering the state of the nation on 1 June, he said he supported dissolution, as long as the succession could be secured, but backed the calls for the debate to be adjourned so that more time could be given to consider the arguments.
Halifax’s championing of the cause of dissenting congregations was called to mind during the summer amid divisions within the parish of Westminster over the intention to admit Heneage Finch, Baron Guernsey (later earl of Aylesford), as a vestryman. The dispute inspired the new dean of (Westminster Francis Atterbury, who would later become bishop of Rochester), ‘to desire them to have a care of bringing lords into the vestry, and to put them in mind that when they chose Lord Halifax they had soon after the Palatines brought in upon them.’
Halifax took his seat in the new Parliament two days after it finally opened on 18 Feb. 1714 (after which he was present on 87 per cent of all sittings). The following month he was to the fore in the debates on the peace, and on 5 Mar. he received Somers’ proxy, which was vacated a month later on Somers’ resumption of his seat on 5 April.
At this late stage, Halifax still appeared persuaded that he would be able to arrive at an accommodation with Oxford. On 21 Apr. 1714 he wrote, ‘I can’t help saying I think in this juncture much good might be done, and I am zealous to do my part, that I will be so impertinent to desire to know if I could no way assist in making your lordship the happy instrument of saving our country which I think on the brink of ruin.’
On 24 June 1714 Halifax found himself in the unusual position of concurring with Bolingbroke, when his habitual adversary proposed the introduction of a bill making it high treason to enlist in the Pretender’s service. Although Halifax asserted that such a bill was hardly necessary, the Pretender’s adherents already being attainted, he continued that ‘he should be glad such a bill were brought in; because, with some alterations, it might be made a very good one’. He subsequently moved the second reading and was vocal at the committee stage on 26 June. Their show of unity proved short-lived. On 2 July Halifax and Bolingbroke were once more ranged against each other over the question of trade, to Spain, Halifax arguing that ‘the most beneficial branch of commerce, the trade, for the recovery of which we entered into the late expensive war, had been notoriously neglected, and given up.’
The Hanoverian accession and final year
Halifax was named by the Elector as one of the regents on the death of Queen Anne, and this may explain why he attended on just two days of the brief session that assembled following the queen’s death.
Unlike most of his allies, Halifax determined to pursue ‘moderate measures’ in an effort to attract broad support for the new regime.
Edward Harley‡ (son of Oxford’s brother, Auditor Edward Harley‡) noted Halifax’s death as ‘a great loss to his party, though some of the violent men don’t think so.’